I trust math and science, fuzzy. Most of my forecasts about this election are based on mathematical models and a historical understanding of how elections have gone down in the past. I'm not sure how that makes me a "CNN sheep" when you are the one eating up some nonsense anecdotal narrative and I'm pointing to actual quantifiable information.

Location: "You are the poster child for an uninformed brainwashed American" -OmegaConcern

Posts: 20,009

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

I was talking to my cousin earlier today from Seattle and she's seriously considering moving to Canada if Clinton wins the election. She's certain that Clintons gonna get the military involved in more pointless wars like the one she was wet over in Iraq and that the country's gonna turn to shit.

From what I hear theres seriously a legit anxiety that Clintons gonna win. I don't think this is going to be a slam dunk election by any means.

Location: "You are the poster child for an uninformed brainwashed American" -OmegaConcern

Posts: 20,009

Quote:

Originally Posted by vixnix

I was thinking more about impeachment/forced resignation.

It's incredibly difficult to successfully remove a President via impeachment. There would need to be blatent evidence of the president committing a felony while in office, or a serious transgression regarding his constitutional use of executive power. Even now while we have a Democratic president that most Republicans think is guilty of all manner of crimes, they've made no effort to impeach him.

Today there is no way that a Republican Congress would impeach a Republican president. They will support anybody that supports their hold on power. These are ppl who today think Richard Nixon was a great man.

Republicans wouldn't impeach a President of their own party because there is nothing that will hold them accountable for not doing so. Today the Republican party controls both houses of our legislature despite the fact that the Democratic Party in election after election gets the majority of votes. They hold 55 seats in the Senate with only about 40% of the vote nationally. And they hold a 20+ seat majority in the lower house despite getting well below 50% of the vote year after year.

They've rigged the elections by rigging the way legislative districts are drawn. Because of that they don't need to be accountable to voters. They can ignore the law and remain in power.

How about your forecast about Trump having no chance to win the primary? How did that work out for you Nostradamus?

yeah but did that actually happen or are you just making shit up again and saying I said it? I'm not really sure what the fuck your point is, beyond you and fuzzyroes persistently making the argument that your intuition is better than aggregate poll data, which is fucking retarded

yeah but did that actually happen or are you just making shit up again and saying I said it? I'm not really sure what the fuck your point is, beyond you and fuzzyroes persistently making the argument that your intuition is better than aggregate poll data, which is fucking retarded

"In the most recent survey, 41 percent of likely voters supported Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, and 40 percent backed Trump, with 19 percent not decided on either yet, according to the online poll of 1,289 people conducted from Friday to Tuesday. The poll had a credibility interval of about 3 percentage points."

Location: "The worst poster on this board by far." -- The worst poster on this board by far

Posts: 4,064

So Paul Ryan

You guys think he's gonna try to advocate for the party to unite behind Trump, or keep his distance so that when he eventually runs for president, he can campaign on having had stood up to Trump when Trump betrayed "conservative values?"

I dunno, I love watching how the establishment GOP reacts to Trump. They don't want to admit that Trump represents exactly the angry-white-guy demographic they've been courting for decades to capitalize on stupid people and mobilize them in support for the same neoliberal agenda that hurts them. When some anti-Trump GOPers claim that Trump is not a "true conservative," they point to positions he's held in the past but no longer holds, like on abortion. Or to his protectionism, because there is a myth that the GOP is for free trade, when they are actually for free trade in instances that benefit their corporate investors, and protectionism in instances that benefit their corporate investors. Even revered St. Reagan was an incredibly protectionist president. Trump is no different, it's just that, in the fashion of European nationalist conservatives, he campaigns on protectionism to appeal to labourers in internationally non-competitive sectors who think the problem is China rather than corporations.

I mean, I guess he criticized the Iraq War, but so have other Republicans (in hindsight). Overall, he's the perfect conservative. Except not really, because he's too rich to need the money of the party's investors. So that makes him a terrible conservative, because all that other culture-war bullshit has only ever been a tool to push through the financial agenda.

But since Trump announced that he won't be using his own money for the general election, and the Koch bros. are already tacitly supporting him, I'm guessing the establishment guys will find themselves suddenly warm to him and rallying behind him and saying that he always was a true conservative after all.

I trust math and science, fuzzy. Most of my forecasts about this election are based on mathematical models and a historical understanding of how elections have gone down in the past. I'm not sure how that makes me a "CNN sheep" when you are the one eating up some nonsense anecdotal narrative and I'm pointing to actual quantifiable information.

If your political calculus doesn't factor in this variable, you're not doing it right.

Michael Connell. Connell served as the IT guru for the Bush family and Karl Rove. Connell ran the private IT firm GovTech that created the controversial system that transferred Ohio's vote count late on election night 2004 to a partisan Republican server site in Chattanooga, Tennessee owned by SmarTech. That is when the vote shift happened, not predicted by the exit polls, that led to Bush's unexpected victory.Connell died a month and a half after giving this deposition in a suspicious small plane crash.

and also I don't know what PPP poll TOC's Washington Times article is talking about (lol the washington times), because as you can clearly see right fucking up there on that graphic, the PPP poll released on the 9th shows Clinton with a 6 point lead

So the polls tighten. so what. So they throw her under the bus at some point and run with Sanders or Biden, why would that matter when she's just another Neo-Con with a few choice politically correct positions?

The investigation by the Daily Caller News Foundation has uncovered a disturbing pattern of the Clintons’ raising money for the Clinton Foundation from regimes that have checkered records on human rights and that aren’t always operating in the best interests of the U.S. By the way, the $100 million we mentioned above doesn’t appear to ******* another $30 million given to the Clintons by two Mideast-based foundations and four billionaire Saudis.

"She's going to win by dictatorship. Twenty-five percent of superdelegates are cronies, mostly. They weren't elected. They were there in order to stop somebody like Bernie Sanders, who would win by the vote."

Location: "You are the poster child for an uninformed brainwashed American" -OmegaConcern

Posts: 20,009

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

"She's going to win by dictatorship. Twenty-five percent of superdelegates are cronies, mostly. They weren't elected. They were there in order to stop somebody like Bernie Sanders, who would win by the vote."

um, except that Sanders is behind clinton by 3.1 million votes. Clinton now has 12.5 million to Sanders's 9.4 million. And 8 years ago she had more votes than Obama and still lost the nomination. you'd think that if she was so all powerful she'd have gotten all those Super Delegates and she'd have been president in 2008!

the notion that she is some kind of dictator is ridiculous. if she is why'd she lose to Obama? it's even more ridiculous that some Sanders supporters seem to think that Sanders is winning. He has 20% fewer votes, fewer delgates and no real chance of getting the nomination.

Sanders is trying to get a foot hold at the convention to control the party platform. The party platform is roundly ignored. It's symbolic. And if he really cared about it he wouldn't have waited 40 years to join the Democratic party. You don't get a seat at the table by registering as a Dem last year.